Naturalistic fallacies will only carry you so far. For example, my 12 year old car has none of the incredibly adapted limbs and muscles of a cheetah, but can still easily exceed the animal land speed.

The article makes a compelling case that a certain kind of sensory input and learning is necessary to crack robotic movement in general, it remains to be seen if such a fine array of sensors as the human hand is useful outside very specific use-cases. A robot that can stock shelves reliably would still be immensely useful and very generalizable, even if it can't thread the needle due to limited fine sensory abilities.